Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Medicine and Pharmacy Reports logoLink to Medicine and Pharmacy Reports
. 2021 Apr 29;94(2):145–157. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1784

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

Emanuel Darius Cata 1,2, Iulia Andras 1,2,, Teodora Telecan 3, Attila Tamas-Szora 4, Radu-Tudor Coman 5, Dan-Vasile Stanca 1,2, Ioan Coman 1,2, Nicolae Crisan 1,2
PMCID: PMC8118209  PMID: 34013185

Abstract

Aim

For decades, the gold standard technique for diagnosing prostate cancer was the 10 to 12 core systematic transrectal or transperineal biopsy, under ultrasound guidance. Over the past years, an increased rate of false negative results and detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer has been noted, resulting into overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the changes in diagnosis and management of prostate cancer brought by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.

Methods

A critical review of literature was carried out using the Medline database through a PubMed search, 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria: prospective studies published in the past 8 years with at least 100 patients per study, which used multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as guidance for targeted biopsies.

Results

In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy and Fusion targeted biopsy outperform standard systematic biopsy both in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection, and ensure a lower detection rate of insignificant prostate cancer, with fewer cores needed. In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy performs better than Fusion biopsy especially in cases of apical lesions.

Conclusion

Targeted biopsy is an emerging and developing technique which offers the needed improvements in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer and lowers the incidence of insignificant ones, providing a more accurate selection of the patients for active surveillance and focal therapies.

Keywords: Fusion targeted biopsy, In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy, multiparametric MRI, prostate cancer detection, systematic prostate biopsy, targeted prostate biopsy

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent malignancy in male patients, being held accountable for 19% of diagnosed cancers in the American male population [1], with the third-highest mortality rate (10.1 deaths/100000 men) [2].

The former gold standard technique recommended by the European Association of Urology (EAU) for diagnosing PCa was represented by 10 to 12 core systematic transrectal or transperineal biopsy (SBx), under ultrasound guidance, performed whenever the digital rectal exam is positive or the PSA above the cutoff value [3]. However, basing the indication of systematic biopsies solely on these criteria has led over the past years to an increased rate of false negative results (22–30%) [4] and detection of clinically insignificant PCa, resulting into overdiagnosis and overtreatment [5]. Thus, a prior imaging evaluation is needed. In 2019, EAU recommended association of systematic biopsy with targeted biopsy from the suspect lesion identified by multiparametric MRI [6].

The advance of technology and the availability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in daily practice expanded its use, not only for staging purposes, but also for diagnosis and therapeutic ones, offering the possibility of targeted biopsy. Currently, three modalities are employed:

  1. Cognitive targeted biopsy (Cog-TBx): the radiologist marks the suspected lesion on the MRI, while the urologist performs the visually targeted biopsy using ultrasound guidance.

  2. MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion targeted biopsy (Fus-Bx): a software overlays the MRI and ultrasound image in real time, with the annotations (lesions marking) being done by the operator.

  3. In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy (IB-TBx): which is performed inside de MRI gantry, by the radiologist, using magnetic field compatible biopsy kit.

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the changes in diagnosis and management of PCa, brought by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.

Methods

A critical review of literature was carried out using the Medline database through a PubMed search. The searching protocol included the following terms: “prostate cancer”, “transrectal biopsy”, “MRI”, “fusion”. The inclusion criteria were: prospective trials or retrospective prospective acquired databases published during the last 8 years, use of mpMRI for guiding targeted biopsy and minimum 100 patients included per study (except for the in-bore MRI targeted biopsy, due to the limited number of studies).

Results

37 studies were selected, with characteristics detailed in table I. Thirty two of the 37 trials were single center while 5 were multicenter. Six reports included only patients with previous negative biopsies, 18 studies patients with no prior biopsy, while 11 of them included both patients with repeated or initial biopsy. Population characteristics may be observed in table II and cancer detection rates (CDR) in table III. Definition of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) varies among the studies and it is detailed in table I.

Table I.

Trials included in the current analysis.

No Study Year Instit. Pa. No. Previous Neg. Biopsy MRI Sequences T Endorectal Coil Evaluation System Biopsy Type Access Type Definition of csPCa

1 Wysock et al. (PROFUS TRIAL) [7] 2013 Single 125 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy/AS T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 3T Pelvic Coil ESUR 2012 FUS-TBx, COG-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

2 Tonttila et al. [8] 2015 Single 113 No prior biopsy T1W, T2W, DCE, DWI, ADC 3T Pelvic Coil 1–4 Likehood of cancer Cog-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm or with > 2 abnormal cores

3 Pepe et al. [9] 2016 Single 200 Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI, Spect. 3T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx, Cog-TBx Transperineal/ Transrectal GS ≥ 6 with > 2 cores

4 Delongchamps et al. [10] 2013 Single 127 No prior biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 1.5T Endorectal Coil 3 point Scale SBx, Cog-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm

2013 Single 131 No prior biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 1.5T Endorectal Coil 3 point Scale SBx, rigid Fus-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm

2013 Single 133 No prior biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 1.5T Endorectal Coil 3 point Scale SBx, elastic Fus-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm

5 Kam et al. [11] 2017 Single 56 NA T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 1.5 T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Cog-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4
2017 Single 65 NA T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 1.5 T Pelvic Coil PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4

6 Kaufmann et al. [12] 2014 Single 35 Prior negative biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 1.5T Endorectal Coil PIRADS Score IB-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS pattern ≥ 4 or tertiary pattern 5, PSA > 10 ng/ml, PSAD > 0.15 ng/ml/cm3

7 Quentin et al.[13] 2014 Single 128 No prior biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 3T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score IB-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm

8 Pokorny et al. [14] 2014 Single 223 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Pelvic Coil PIRADS v1 IB-TBx, SBx Transrectal very low volume GS 3+4 / low volume GS 6

9 Arsov et al. [15] 2015 Single 106 Prior negative biopsy T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 3 T Pelvic Coil Likert Scale IB-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4
104 Prior negative biopsy T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 3 T Pelvic Coil Likert Scale, PIRADS Score FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

10 Sonn et al.[16] 2013 Single 105 Prior negative biopsy T2W, ADC, DCE 3T Pelvic Coil Image grade 1–5 SBx, Fus-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm

11 Kuru et al. [17] 2013 Single 347 No Prior/ Prior neg. biopsy T1W, T2W, DCE, DWI, ADC 3 T NA Low-High Suspicion TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4

12 Rastinehad et al. [18] 2014 Single 105 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DWI, ADC, DCE 3 T Pelvic Coil NIH Risk System/Likert Scale SBx, Fus-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 50% or with > 2 abnormal cores

13 Panebianco et al. [19] 2014 Single 570 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3 T Endorectal/Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score SBx Transrectal NA

570 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3 T Endorectal/Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal NA

14 Baco et al. [20] 2015 Single 175 No prior biopsy T2W, DWI, ADC 1.5 T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm

15 Siddiqui et al.[21] 2015 Single 1003 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DWI, DCE, Spect. 3T Endorectal/Pelvic Coil Low-High Suspicion FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 with > 50% of core

16 de Gorski et al. [22] 2015 Single 232 No prior biopsy T1W, T2W, DCE, DWI, ADC 1.5 T Pelvic Coil Likert Scale SBx, Fus-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm

17 Radtke et al. [23] 2015 Single 294 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4

18 Cash et al. [24] 2015 Single 408 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DWI 3T No endorectal coil PIRADS Score v1 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm

19 Mozer et al. [25] 2015 Single 152 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5 T Pelvic Coil Likert Scale FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 4 mm

20 Peltier et al. [26] 2015 Single 110 No prior biopsy T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 3T Endorectal/Pelvic Coil PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 6 mm

21 Porpiglia et al.[ 27] 2016 Single 107 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5 T Endorectal Coil PIRADS Score SBx, Fus-TBx Transperineal/Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm
105 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5 T Endorectal Coil PIRADS Score SBx Transperineal/Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 5 mm

22 Zhang et al. [28] 2016 Single 224 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI, ADC 3T NA PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with MCL ≥ 50%

23 Mehralivand et al. [29] 2017 Single 339 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DWI, ADC, DCE 3T Endorectal/Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score v2 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal ISUP ≥ 2

24 Hakozaki et al. [30] 2017 Single 177 No Prior/ Prior neg. biopsy/AS T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transperineal Epstein Criteria

25 Gordetsky et al. [31] 2017 Single 191 NA T2W, DCE, DWI, ADC NA NA PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

26 Castellucci et al. [32] 2017 Single 168 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5 T Surface coil PIRADS Score v1 Cog-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

27 Mariotti et al. [33] 2017 Single 100 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Surface coil Likert FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

28 Boesen et al. [34] 2017 Single 289 Prior negative biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS Score v1 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4; > 50% of core; ≥3 positive cores

29 Kasivisvanathan et al. [35] 2018 Multi 500 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5T/3T Endorectal or Pelvic Coil PIRADS FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

30 Borkowetz et al. [36] 2018 Multi 214 No prior biopsy T1W, T2W, DWI, DCE 3T No endo-rectal coil PIRADS v1 and v2 SBx, Fus-TBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4

31 Hofbauer et al. [37] 2018 Single 704 No Prior/ Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Pelvic Coil PIRADS Score v2 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

32 Costa et al. [38] 2018 Single 103 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Endorectal Coil PIRADS Score v2 IB-Tx, Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4
300 No Prior/Prior neg. biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Endorectal Coil PIRADS Score v2 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

33 Maxeiner et al. [39] 2018 Single 318 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Surface coil PIRADS Score FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 4+3 or MCCL ≥ 6MM

34 Wegelin et al. [40] 2018 Multi 79 Prior negative biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS Score v2 FUS-TBx Transperineal GS ≥ 3+4
78 Prior negative biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS Score v2 Cog-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4
77 Prior negative biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS Score v2 IB-TBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

35 van der Leest [41] 2019 Multi 626 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T NA PIRADS Score v2 IB-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

36 Elkhoury et al. [42] 2019 Single 248 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Surface coil PIRADS Score v2 FUS-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4
248 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 3T Surface coil PIRADS Score v2 Cog-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4

37 Rouviere et al. [43] 2019 Multi 251 No prior biopsy T2W, DCE, DWI 1.5T/3T Surface/endorectal coil Likert score Fus-TBx/Cog-TBx, SBx Transrectal GS ≥ 3+4 or GS 6 with ≥ 6mm

Table II.

Population characteristics of the trials included in our analysis.

No. Study Number of patients Mean age Mean PSA ng/ml Prostate volume cc

1 Wysock et al. (PROFUS TRIAL) [7] 125 65 (56.3–71.0) 5.1 (3.5–7.31) 46 (31.0–62.5)
2 Tonttila et al. [8] 113 62.5 (56–67) 6.15 (4.0–10.7) 29.8 (23.5–44.3)
3 Pepe et al. [9] 200 61 (47–75) 8.6 (4.5–26) NA
4 Delongchamps et al. [10] 127 62.7 ± 7.4 8.1 ± 3.7 53 ± 25
131 64.6 ± 6.7 8.3 ± 4.1 55.7 ± 35.1
133 64.5 ± 7.9 9 ± 3.9 58.3 ± 28.6

5 Kam et al. [11] 56 66.3 (45–80) 7.5 (1.3–18) 49.7 (13–125)

65 65.0 (48–75) 7.3 (2.7–18) 55.2 (16–128)

6 Kaufmann et al. [12] 35 68 (55–75) 9.42 (4–25) 42 (20–66)

7 Quentin et al. [13] 128 67 (62–72) 6.7 (5.1–9) 47.5 (36–66.9)

8 Pokorny et al. [14] 223 63 (57–68) 5.3 (4.1–6.6) 41 (30–59)

9 Arsov et al. [15] 106 66 (60–71) 10 (7.8–14.9) 54 (40–77)

104 68 (63–71) 10.8 (7.4–15.5- 60 (42–82)

10 Sonn et al. [16] 105 65 [5970] 7.5 [5–11.2] 58 [3982]

11 Kuru et al. [17] 347 65.3 (42–82) 9.85 (0.5–105) 48.7 (9–180)

12 Rastinehad et al. [18] 105 65.8 (42–87) 9.2 (0.6–62.0) NA

13 Panebianco et al. [19] 570 64 (51–82) NA NA

570 64 (51–82) NA NA

14 Baco et al. [20] 175 65 (59–69) 7.3 (5.5–9.9) 42 (30–59)

15 Siddiqui et al. [21] 1003 62.1 (7.5) 6.7 (4.4–10.7) 49 (36–71)

16 de Gorski et al. [22] 232 64 ± 6.4 6.5 ± 1.8 47 ± 24.3

17 Radtke et al. [23] 294 64 (60–71) 7.3 ±6.0 47.00 ± 37.5

18 Cash et al. [24] 408 67 (60–71) 9.33 (0.68–14.65) 50 (35–65)

19 Mozer et al. [25] 152 63 (59.3–67.5) 6 (5–7.9) 44 (30–55)

20 Peltier et al. [26] 110 65.1 (48.0–79.2) 8.4 (0.7–40) 49.3 (18–162)

21 Porpiglia et al. [27] 107 64 (58–70) 5.9 (4.8–7.5) 46.2 (34.5–71.6)

105 66 (60–70) 6.7 (5.5–8.5) 45.7 (34.6–65.0)

22 Zhang et al. [28] 224 69 (40–85) 10.05 (3.61–78.39) 45.5 (22–77)

23 Mehralivand et al. [29] 339 64.1 6.47 (4.59–9.31) 55 (41–79)

24 Hakozaki et al. [30] 177 68.3 (48–89) 10.9 (1.65–218) 42.4 (11–134)

25 Gordetsky et al. [31] 191 63.3 ± 7.2 9.2 ± 9.6 NA

26 Castellucci et al. [32] 168 61.4 ± 7.60 8.3 ± 6.1 48.9 ± 6.7

27 Mariotti et al. [33] 100 62.5 (35–86) 5.3 (0.2–36.0) 48 (16.0–130.0)

28 Boesen et al. [34] 289 64 (59–67) 12 (8.3–19) 63 (46–87)

29 Kasivisvanathan et al.[35] 500 64.4 6.62 (5.14 – 9.35) NA

30 Borkowetz et al. [36] 214 63 (40–75) 6.22 (1–49) 42 (8–270)

31 Hofbauer et al. [37] 704 68 (62–73) 7.93 (5.97–12.17) 51 (40–72)

32 Costa et al. [38] 103 64 ±7 8 ±4.1 55.4 ±24.5
300 66 ±8 8.6 ±11.5 51.6 ±23.5

33 Maxeiner et al. [39] 318 68 (60–72) 7.14 (5.13–10.3) 47 (36–65)

34 Wegelin et al. [40] 79 64.6 ±6.9 11.6 ±9.0 45.4 ±14.4
78 66.5 ±6.3 11.0 ±7.1 48.5 ±18.1
77 66.0 ±5.9 11.0 ±9.4 48.3 ±20.2

35 van der Leest [41] 326 65 (59–68) 6.4 (4.6–8.2) 55 (41–77)

36 Elkhoury et al. [42] 248 65.5 ±7.7 6.2 ±4.6–8.2 NA
248 65.5 ±7.7 6.2 ±4.6–8.2 NA

37 Rouviere et al. [43] 251 64 (59–68) 6.5 (5.6–9.6) 50 (38–63)

Table III.

Comparison of the performance of SB (Systematic Biopsy), Fus-TBx (Fusion Targeted Biopsy) and IB-TBx (In-Bore MRI Targeted Biopsy) in terms of overall CDR (cancer detection rate), csPCa (clinically significant Prostate Cancer), isPCa (clinically insignificant Prostate Cancer).

No Study S/M Pa. No. Type PCa Over-all CDR % (n/N) PCa SBx % (n/N) PCa TBx % (n/N) PCa p value csPCa Over-all CDR % (n/N) csPCa SBx % (n/N) csPCa TBx % (n/N) csPCa p Value Upgrading % (n/N) isPCa SBx % (n/N) isPCa TBx % (n/N) is PCa p value

1 Wysock et al. (PROFUS TRIAL) [7] Single 125 FUS-TBx, COG-TBx, SBx NA 55.2 (37/67) 40.3 (27/67) NA NA 32.8 (22/67) 32.8 (22/67) NA NA 22.4 (15/67) 7.5 (5/67) NA

2 Tonttila et al. [8] Single 113 Cog-TBx, SBx NA 64 (34/53) 57 (34/60) NA NA 55 (29/53) 45 (27/60) NA NA 9.4 (5/53) 12 (7/60) NA

3 Pepe et al. [9] Single 200 TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx, Cog-TBx 42.5 (85/200) NA NA NA 30 (60/200) 98.3 (59/60) 93.3 (56/60) NA NA NA NA NA

4 Delongchamps et al. [10] Single 127 SBx, Cog-TBx NA 43 (55/127) 67 (37/55) NA NA 33 (18/55) 45 (18/37) 0.6 NA 22 0 NA

Single 131 SBx, rigid Fus-TBx NA 46 (60/131) 76.6 (46/60) NA NA NA NA NA NA 25 9 NA

Single 133 SBx, elastic Fus-TBx NA 33 (44/133) 79.5 (35/44) NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 6 NA

5 Kam et al. [11] Single 56 Cog-TBx, SBx 80 (46/56) 73 (41/56) 70 (39/56) >0.05 64.28 (36/56) 58.92 (33/56) 57.14 (32/56) NA NA NA NA NA
Single 65 FUS-TBx, SBx 72 (47/65) 66 (43/65) 62 (41/65) >0.05 50.76 (33/65) 43.09 (28/65) 44.61 (29/65) NA NA NA NA NA

6 Kaufmann et al. [12] Single 35 IB-TBx, SBx 46 (16/35) 23 (8/35) 46 (16/35) <0.05 46 (16/35) NA 46 (16/35) NA 0 0 0 NA

7 Quentin et al. [13] Single 128 IB-TBx, SBx 60.9 (78/128) 53.1 (68/128) 53.1 (68/128) 0.74 82.1 (64/78) 79.4 (54/68) 85.3 (58/68) NA 10.9 (7/68) NA NA NA

8 Pokorny et al. [14] Single 223 IB-TBx, SBx 63.67 (142/223) 56.5 (126/223) 69.71 (99/142) na 48.43 (108/223) 35.42 (79/223) 42 (93/223) <0.0001 32 (35/108)* 21 (47/223) 3 (6/223) <0.0001

9 Arsov et al. [15] Single 106 IB-TBx 37 (39/106) NA 37 (39/106) 0.7 29 (31/106) NA 29 (31/106) NA NA NA NA NA
Single 104 FUS-TBx, SBx 39 (41/108) 35 (36/104) 34 (35/104) 0.08 32 (33/104) 25 (26/104) 26 (27/104) NA NA NA NA NA

10 Sonn et al.[16] Single 105 SBx, Fus-TBx 34 (36/105) 27 (28/102) 24 (23/97) NA 72 (26/36) 54 (21/28) 91 (21/23) NA 25 (9/36) NA NA NA

11 Kuru et al. [17] Single 347 TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx 58 (200/347) 41.78 (145/347) 36.88 (128/347) NA 73.5 (147/200) 50 (100/200) 52 (104/200) NA NA NA NA NA

12 Rastinehad et al. [18] Single 105 SBx, Fus-TBx 62.8 (66/105) 48.57 (51/105) 50.47 (53/105) <0.001 48.6 (51/105) 66.66 (34/51) 88.67 (53/537) <0.001 34.84 (23/66) 33.33 (17/51) 11.33 (4/57) NA

13 Panebianco et al. [19] Single 570 SBx 37.71 (215/570) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Single 570 FUS-TBx, SBx 71.92 (410/570) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

14 Baco et al. [20] Single 175 FUS-TBx, SBx 56.57 (99/175) 54 (48/89) 59 (51/86) 0.4 46.85 (82/175) 49 (44/89) 38 (33/86) 0.2 NA NA NA NA

15 Siddiqui et al. [21] Single 1003 FUS-TBx, SBx NA 46.75 (469/1003) 45.96 (461/1003) NA NA 26 (122/469) 37.5 (173/461) <0.001 17 (167/1003) 55 (258/469) 46.2 (213/461) 0.002

16 de Gorski et al. [22] Single 232 SBx, Fus-TBx 61.6 (143/232) 55.6 (129/232) 54.3 (126/232) NA 48.7 (113/232) 39.2 (91/232) 44 (102/232) NA 17.46 (22/126) 16.37 (38/232) 10.34 (24/232) NA

17 Radtke et al. [23] Single 294 TPM-Bx, Fus-TBx 51 (150/294) 45.91 (135/294) 38.09 (112/294) 0.001 57.3 (86/150) 45.3 (68/150) 50 (75/150) NA NA 44.66 (67/150) 24.66 (37/150) NA

18 Cash et al. [24] Single 408 FUS-TBx, SBx 56 (227/408) NA 40.19 (164/408) NA 45.58 (186/408) NA 32.59 (133/408) NA NA NA NA NA

19 Mozer et al. [25] Single 152 FUS-TBx, SBx NA 56.57 (86/152) 53.94 (82/152) NA NA 36.84 (56/152) 43.42 (66/152) 0.03 NA 19.7 (30/152) 10.52 (16/152) NA

20 Peltier et al. [26] Single 110 FUS-TBx, SBx NA 45.45 (50/110) 51.81 (57/110) NA NA 29.09 (32/110) 45.45 (50/110) 0.0008 NA 16.36 (18/110) 5.45 (6/110) NA

21 Porpiglia et al. [27] Single 107 SBx, Fus-TBx 50.5 (54/107) 19.2 (5/26) 60.5 (49/81) <0.001 43.9 (47/107) 3.8 (1/26) 56.8 (46/81) <0.001 NA 15.4 (4/26) 3.7 (4/81)

Single 105 SBx 29.5 (31/105) 29.5 (31/105) NA <0.001 18.1 (19/105) 18.1 (19/105) NA <0.001 NA 11.4 (12/31) NA NA

22 Zhang et al. [28] Single 224 FUS-TBx, SBx NA 34.82 (78/224) 44.20 (99/224) 0.001 NA 21.875 (49/224) 33.48 (75/224) <0.001 7.58 (17/224) 12.94 (29/224) 10.71 (24/224) 0.005

23 Mehralivand et al. [29] Single 339 FUS-TBx, SBx 47 (346/737) NA NA NA 32 (237/737) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

24 Hakozaki et al.[30] Single 177 FUS-TBx, SBx 65.5 (116/177) 58.7 (104/177) 49.7 (88/177) >0.05 63.3 (112/177) 57.1 (101/177) 48 (85/177) >0.05 NA NA NA NA

25 Gordetsky et al. [31] Single 191 FUS-TBx, SBx 56 (107/191) 41.4 (79/191) 49.2 (94/191) 0.15 NA 23.56 (45/191) 24.6 (47/191) NA NA 25.65 (49/191) 16.75 (32/191) 0.04

26 Castellucci et al. [32] Single 168 Cog-TBx, SBx 41.1 (69/168) 35.7 (60/168) 28.6 (48/168) NA 24.4 (41/168) 19.26 (33/168) 17.85 (30/168) NA NA 16.07 (27/168) 10.7 (18/168) NA

27 Mariotti et al. [33] Single 100 FUS-TBx, SBx 62 (62/100) 56 (56/100) 53 (53/100) 0.29 50 (50/100) 40 (40/100) 44 (44/100) 0.29 NA 16 (16/100) 9 (9/100) NA

28 Boesen et al. [34] Single 289 FUS-TBx, SBx 44.29 (128/289) 37.37 (108/289) 33.21 (96/289) NA 30.4 (88/289) 20.41 (59/289) 26.9 (78/289) 0.004 11.41 (33/289) 16.95 (49/289) 6.22 (18/289) 0.004

29 Kasivisvanathan et al. [35] Multi 500 FUS-TBx, SBx NA 47.98 (119/248) 46.82 (118/252) NA 26 (64/248) 38 (95/252) 0.005 NA 22 (55/248) 9 (23/252) <0.001

30 Borkowetz et al. [36] Multi 214 SBx, Fus-TBx 52 (111/214) 43 (91/214) 47 (100/214) 0.15 44 (94/214) 35 (74/214) 38 (81/214) 0.296 NA 7.94 (17/214) 8.87 (19/214) NA

31 Hofbauer et al. [37] Single 704 FUS-TBx, SBx 74 (521/704 NA 63 (446/704) NA 54 (380/704) NA 45 (317/704) NA NA NA NA NA

32 Costa et al. [38] Single 103 IB-Tx 69.9 (72/103) NA 69.9 (72/103) NA 61 (63/103) NA 61 (63/103) <0.0001 NA NA NA NA
Single 300 FUS-TBx, SBx 64.66 (194/300) NA 64.66 (194/300) NA 47 (141/103) NA 47 (141/103) <0.0001 NA NA NA NA

33 Maxeiner et al[39] Single 318 FUS-TBx, SBx 77 (245/318) 69.8 (222/318) 66.9 (213/318) NA 61.3 (195/318) 45.59 (145/318) 51.2 (163/318) NA NA 24.21 (77/318) 15.72 (50/318) NA

34 Wegelin et al. [40] Multi 79 FUS-TBx NA NA 49.4 0.4 NA NA 34.2 >0.9 NA NA 63.8 NA
Multi 78 Cog-TBx NA NA 43.6 0.4 NA NA 33.3 >0.9 NA NA 66.7 NA
Multi 77 IB-TBx NA NA 54.5 0.4 NA NA 32.5 >0.9 NA NA 63.5 NA

35 van der Leest [41] Multi 326 IB-TBx, SBx 54 (338/626) 48 (301/626) 39 (247/626) NA 32 (200/626) 23.3 (146/626) 25.4 (159/626) 0.17 7 (21/317) 25 (155/626) 14.1 (88/626) 0.0001

36 Elkhoury et al. [42] Single 248 FUS-TBx, SBx 70.2 (174/248) 62.1 (154/248) 62.1 (154/248) NA NA 60.4 (150/248) 54 (134/248) NA NA 18.54 (46/248) 17.33 (43/248) NA
248 Cog-TBx, SBx 70.2 (174/248) 62.1 (154/248) 46.8 (116/248) NA NA 60.4 (150/248) 46.77 (116/248) NA NA 18.54 (46/248) 15.3 (38/248) NA

37 Rouviere et al. [43] Multi 251 Fus-TBx/Cog-TBx, SBx 64.14 (161/251) 52.19 (131/251) 41.4 (104/251) NA 42 (105/251) 32.66 (82/251) 35.83 (90/251) 0.26 9.2 (5.9–13.4) 19.52 (49/251) 5.57 (14/251) <0.0001

MRI-targeted biopsy

A. Cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy

The first method of performing targeted MRI guided biopsies to be employed in clinical practice was Cog-TBx. However, due to the increasing availability of MRI-TRUS fusion and in-bore systems, the number of trials that observed the 8-years inclusion criteria was limited.

Eight studies were selected for our analysis, presenting conflicting results: Wysock, Elkhoury and Castelucci [7,32,42] report superiority of standard systematic biopsy (SBx) compared to Cog-TBx in terms of overall cancer detection rate (CDR) in biopsy naïve patients, while Delongchamps et al. [10] concludes the opposite. Tonttila et al. [8] and Kam et al. [11] presented the non-inferiority of Cog-TBx compared to SBx. Also, Cog-TBx presents the lowest performance in PCa diagnosis when compared to FUS-TBx or IB-TBx, even though it is not statistically significant [40]. Despite these results, Cog-TBx has similar detection rates of csPCa with saturation biopsy, with statistically significant lower number of cores obtained [44]. Association of Cog-TBx with SBx presents higher accuracy for PCa and csPCa diagnosis when compared to each technique alone (SBx or Cog-TBx) [11,32,42].

All studies reported that targeted biopsy methods were significantly more efficient when compared to SBx regarding cancer core length/core and number of positive cores.

B. MRI/TRUS Fusion targeted biopsy

Fus-TBx combines the advantages of both Cog-TBx and IB-TBx, fusing the broad availability of Cog-TBx with real time visualization of the tumor by magnetic resonance imaging [45].

Twenty-nine of the studies compiled in our analysis compared TBx with the previously listed techniques. In 17 studies, the CDR were similar between the evaluated methods (TBx vs SBx, ± 5–10%), while 2 studies reported a statistically significant higher detection rate for Fus-TBx, with an improvement of at least 10%, compared to SBx [27,28]. Only one study favored SBx concerning cancer detection rate [23]. PROFUS Trial reported no statistically significant difference between Cog-TBx and Fus-TBx in terms of CDR, with the mention that FUS-TBx provided better histological specimens compared to visual targeting [7]. Several studies demonstrate that Fus-TBx combined with SBx outperforms both Fus-TBx and SBx alone [34,36,38,39,42,43].

Regarding CDR for csPCa, 20 studies showed higher prevalence of csPCa for the patients biopsied by Fus-TBx, in 8 of them the difference was statistically significant [18,21,2528,34,35]. Even in a multicenter designed trial, Fus-TBx outperformed SBx for the diagnosis of csPCa [35], while the detection rate for is PCa was lower [21,28,31,3335,39,42,43]. It is necessary to mention that the definition of csPCa varied significantly among the studies. Fus-TBx presents a high performance in reducing statistically significant the diagnosis rate of insignificant PCa compared to SBx [21,28,31,34,43].

Five studies reported upgrading rates when Fus-TBx was performed compared to SBx, varying between 7.58% and 35% (Table III). Siddiqui’s trial of 1003 patients, the most exhaustive study published up to date, concluded that Fus-TBx increased the diagnostic rate of high-risk cancers up to 30% (p<0.001) and upgrading to intermediate or high-risk groups (p<0.001), compared to SBx [21].

In terms of diagnostic efficiency, Radtke et al. showed that even if saturation biopsy outruled Fus-TBx from the perspective of CDR, it still needs twice more cores to detect 1 GS ≥7 (7.4 cores vs 3.4 cores) [23]. On the other hand, PRECISION multicenter trial reported a statistical significant better performance of Fus-TBx for CDR and diagnostic efficiency, while similar efficiency was observed in several other trials [12,16,26].

C. In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy (IB-TBx)

In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy is considered to be the most precise method. In the present paper, we included 7 studies: 4 comparing IB-TBx to SBx while 3 IB-TBx to Fus-TBx. Transrectal approach was used in all evaluated studies.

The over-all CDR for PCa varied significantly from 37% to 69.9%, with some authors reporting better diagnosis rates for IB-TBx compared to SBx [12,14]. IB-TBx presented higher CDR compared to Fus-TBx or Cog-TBx, although not statistically significant [13,21,34].

Reviewing CDR for csPCa, all authors showed that IB-TBx has a higher efficiency, compared to standard randomized biopsy [1215,38,41], but similar to the Fus-TBx [15]. Also, IB-TBx identifies a statistically significant lower percentage of insignificant PCa when compared to SBx [14,41], upgrading 7% to 32% of cases diagnosed as no cancer or low risk PCa by SBx [13,14,41]. It presents a 9–10% risk of missing csPCa [13,41], depending upon the lesion dimension and location [46].

Pokorny et al. were the only ones to evaluate the two modalities from the perspective of sensitivity, specificity, positive negative predictive value, for each category IB-TBx outperforming SBx [14].

Regarding tumor features, IB-TBx presented higher efficacy in the number of biopsy cores needed to detect csPCa [14,15,41]. Average percentage of cancer core length was statistically higher for IB-TBx (p<0,001) [14], but the differences fade when Fus-TBx is associated with SBx [15].

Discussion

1. TBx impact on diagnosis and treatment management

Treatment options for non-metastatic PCa include active surveillance, focal therapy, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The therapeutic decision is mainly based on the histopathological examination, provided by the prostate biopsy, randomized or targeted. Multiparametric MRI provides improved diagnosis rate for csPC and staging information, which are the basis for an informed treatment choice and future planning in case of surgical treatment or focal therapies [19].

A. TBx and prostate cancer diagnosis

• Malignant vs. benign

The cumulative risk of prostate cancer diagnosis increases with each repeated biopsy (68% after four biopsies), with 38% of patients requiring a second biopsy after 5 years from the first systematic biopsy [47]. This risk may be lowered by mpMRI and targeted biopsy, taking into consideration that in our analysis TBx outperformed SBx in the majority of studies. Moreover, there is no study to present a statistically significant higher CDR for the SBx, while it was observed that both in high level single institutions and multicenter (PRECISION, FUTURE) trials it is possible to achieve a higher cancer detection rate by TBx. Association of the two biopsy techniques may overcome the current limitations of targeted biopsy by improving both overall PCa and csPCa cancer detection rates. Dell’Oglio et al. emphasized the importance of systematic biopsy to limit the missed csPCa cases by targeted biopsy [48].

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and the subsequent TBx need further improvement, due to a small percentage of prostate cancers being missed with these methods, while properly detected in SBx cases [14,35].

To conclude, even if Cog-TBx is the only available option, mpMRI should be performed prior to the biopsy, to increase the accuracy of diagnosis.

• CsPCa vs isPCa

Assessing the patient in the correct risk category is mandatory in order to decide further treatment. The most important limitation encountered in daily practice is the high inter-studies variability regarding the definition of csPCa (Table I). However, TBx offers more accurate diagnosis of csPCa, especially when Fus-TBx or IB-TBx are performed (Table III) [14,27,28]. Moreover, TBx presents lower detection rate of low risk PCa compared to SBx (Table III).

Cribriform and intraductal prostate carcinoma are included in the clinically significant prostate cancers group, having an aggressive evolution. There are conflicting results in terms of mpMRI performance of identifying these lesions and which biopsy type is more adequate [41,42]. The latest trial to address the issue demonstrated that Fus-TBx significantly outperformed SBx [50].

• Location of the lesion

Lesion localization is an important factor to be taken into consideration, being proved that in case of previous negative biopsy there is a higher probability that the lesion is located in the anterior region of the prostate, which also harbors more frequently csPCa [51]. In a retrospective analysis of 499 patients, half of the 241 anterior lesions identified on mpMRI were positive for PCa, Fus-TBx outperforming SBx in diagnosing PCa located anteriorly (p=0.001) [52].

On the other hand, there are differences between the targeted and systematic biopsies in reaching different prostate zones. Both TBx and SBx may miss apical lesions [46]. IB-TBx potentially misses more csPCa located in dorsolateral and apical segments of the prostate, while SBx tends to miss csPCa in the anterior, anterior midprostate and anterior apex [46].

• Limitations

Despite the fact that the initial mpMRI does not identify any lesion, in up to 26% of patients csPCa may still be present [53]. Standardization and improvement of mpMRI interpretation (PI-RADS v2, v2.1) increased the negative predictive value of mpMRI, up to 82.4% for overall cancer and 88.1% for csPCa [54]. A negative TBx cannot exclude the presence of csPCa, as 46% of the highly suspicious lesions described on MRI can harbor csPCa [55], while repeated Fus-TBx reveals clinically significant discordance with the initial TBx in more than half of the cases [56].

Two possible reasons may explain the percentage of misdiagnosis for targeted biopsy, as reported by Cash et al: firstly, the inaccurate PIRADS Score classification, inexperienced readers having a tendency of reporting higher initial PIRADS score, in up to 39% of lesions [24]. Secondly, TBx failure may be due to prostate movement/deformation by the transrectal ultrasound probe, patient movement, incorrect image registration or mismatch of image planes, but no significant differences were shown by elastic registration or real-time sensor based image registration platforms [57].

The accuracy of three-dimensional MRI/US registration associates a mean target error of 2.4–2.5 mm [58]. An in-vivo experiment showed that in daily practice, co-registration error may be up to 5.6 mm, with the highest errors encountered at the apex of the gland [59]. Despite higher csPCa detection rate when elastic registration was performed, it was not statistically significant different to the rigid one [60]. The skills required to perform TBx improve in time as revealed in a cohort of 1330 patients that underwent Fus-TBx when csPCa detection rate raised by 26%, between the initial and last 190 cases [56].

Moreover, Halstuch et al. showed that larger prostates and right sided biopsy may significantly induce a needle tip deflection, which may account for targeted biopsy error [61]. Despite that prostate volume alters the accuracy of the biopsy, it was observed that Fus-TBx performs better than SBx in larger prostates [22]. In the multivariate analysis, Mozer et al. reported that the probability for detecting csPCa increased in cases of lower volume prostates and larger MRI lesions [25].

B. TBx and prostate cancer treatment

• PCa grading

Prostate cancer staging and grading are essential for the choice between active surveillance, focal therapy or radical therapy. Despite the PCa multifocality, in up 97.5% of cases the index tumor is the one with the largest volume [53], and several studies reported MRI detection rate around 92% [57,58]. MRI performance in identifying index tumors >0.5 mL varied among 86%–92% [53,63].

SBx is responsible for up to 30% of Gleason Score (GS) incorrect classification [64]. Performing saturation biopsy does not significantly improve rate of correct GS [65], while the associated risks of the procedure are well-known. There is better correlation between the GS of biopsy and prostatectomy specimen when Fus-TBx is performed compared to SBx, both in terms of primary and secondary Gleason grade pattern [66].

From the perspective of GS down-grading, Porpiglia et al. reported in a retrospective analysis of 683 cases, that up to one-third of the patients diagnosed by SBx with Gleason 8 were down-graded. Down-grading has a strong impact on the chosen therapy, a tendency to recommend radiation therapy with long-term androgen deprivation for patients with GS 8 or higher has been observed [66].

• Active surveillance (AS) selection and reevaluation

MpMRI is a useful tool in selecting patients for AS due to the high negative predictive value for csPCa [67]. mpMRI provides additional information compared to other imagistic examination. Firstly, it evaluates the extraprostatic extension (EPE), being observed that in those with extraprostatic extension the risk of csPCa is 12 times higher, therefore a more aggressive option is chosen [68]. Secondly, targeted biopsy based on mpMRI reclassified up 10% of patients considered eligible for AS based on SBx [69], with Fus-TBx upgrading up to 24% of SBx results [70].

Multiparametric MRI can play a role in the reevaluation of patients under AS, with the possibility to avoid re-biopsy in patients with PIRADS ≤ 3 lesions and no sign of extra-prostatic extension [68]. PIRADS score is an independent predictor of csPCa in patients benefiting from AS [71]. However, in case of repeated negative mpMRI, biopsy cannot be ruled out because a low risk of csPCa still persists [68]. TBx performs better in the follow-up evaluation of patients under AS compared with SBx [65,68].

• MRI/TRUS Fusion impact on focal therapy

MRI/TRUS Fusion technology not only guides the biopsy, but also focal therapies. MRI/TRUS Fusion technology meets the precision requirement, providing more accessible environment to perform the focal therapy in comparison with the MRI gantry.

Despite an initial pilot study with a 100% recurrence free rate at four weeks after the MRI/TRUS Fusion HIFU [73], another prospective trial with double the number of patients and 12 month reevaluation landmark revealed a recurrence rate of 40% and established that the technique needs further evaluation and improvement [74].

Other focal therapies used were MRI/TRUS Fusion focal cryotherapy, which showed no evident imagistic recurrence, not leaving the possibility of bioptic reevaluation [75], and MRI/TRUS Fusion focal laser ablation which in the pilot study presented no recurrence at the six month rebiopsy [76].

C. TBx cost-effectiveness

The associated higher costs for targeted biopsy (mpMRI, biopsy platform, materials) represent the main argument against its wide employment [77]. PROMIS Trial suggested that mpMRI prior to biopsy has several advantages with possible impact into the healthcare costs, such as avoiding prostate biopsy in up to a quarter of patients, for those with no MRI or low score PIRADS lesion [78]. As shown by our analysis, TBx lowers clinically insignificant cancer diagnosis rate, which will decrease the overtreatment observed and its associated side-effects. A higher detection of clinically significant PCa, from the initial biopsy lowers the number of further necessary investigation with patients benefitting from the correct treatment from the beginning [78]. PRECISION Trial showed that the number of patients with persistent PCa suspicion who needed further investigation was 5 times higher for those who were evaluated by SBx [35].

Venderick et al. performed a computer simulation for biopsy naïve population, which showed that fusion biopsy is cost-effective in the context of two different healthcare systems [79]. Another similar study based on the PROMIS Trial data, showed the same cost-effectiveness of using mpMRI and TBx [80].

2. Future improvement directions

mpMRI interpretation training and reproducibility is crucial in establishing TBx as standard of care. PROMIS and PRECISION Trials supported the collaboration with experienced radiologists, who also benefitted from training in the pilot phase of the study [35,78]. The key to achieve higher sensibility and specificity regarding mpMRI diagnosis of csPCa lies within the improvement brought by PIRADS v2 and v2.1, associated with efficient training for the radiologist. Also, the performance in terms of CDR is correlated with the learning curve [37].

Collaboration between radiologists and urologists is essential. In our analysis in 21 out of the 37 studies, TBx was performed solely by the urologist. It is observed that the definition of TBx between the two specialists may differ in up to 23% cases, with urologists identifying more lesions and with larger volumes in disagreement with PIRADS criteria [81]. A pilot study using a mpMRI case-based ibook for urologists demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mean score test after book review (37% to 57%, p=0.0039) [82]. Therefore, urologist training in mpMRI reading is essential to overcome errors such as lesion choice, target lesion dimensions [81].

Having in mind the persistent low number of csPCa missed by mpMRI and TBx, it is necessary to improve the existent technology by better identification and visualization of suspect lesions using MRI spectroscopy and in vivo metabolic changes observed in prostate cancer [83]. Better performance is needed in terms of higher accuracy when performing registration of the ultrasonography and MRI, which may be acquired using co-registrations markers such as fiducial ones, visible on MRI and US, guiding both biopsy and focal therapy [59].

There are further studies needed in order to evaluate whether factors such as PIRADS score, prostate dimension, number of lesions, location and dimension, anatomic particularities and technique biases can influence the urologist into choosing the right targeted biopsy technique for the patient.

Conclusion

Targeted biopsy is an emerging and developing technique which offers the needed improvements in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer and lowers the incidence of insignificant one, providing more accurate selection of the patients for active surveillance and focal therapies. No significant differences between the MRI targeting techniques have been observed, the key for an accurate diagnosis being the individualization of the biopsy technique according to the particularities of each patient.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania through the Doctoral Research Program grant 2461/9/17.01.2020.

References

  • 1.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Malvezzi M, Carioli G, Bertuccio P, Boffetta P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2018 with focus on colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1016–1022. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M, et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Eur Assoc Urol Guide. 2018. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-ESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-large-text-V2.pdf.
  • 4.Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:66–70. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38663-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, Thong A, Lee JK, Eastham JA, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasound Fusion Software and Visual Targeting: a Prospective Study. J Urol. 2016;196:697–702. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, De Santis M, Fanti S, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology; 2019. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-EANM-ESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2019.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: The PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:343–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E, et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69:419–425. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol. 2016;34:1249–1253. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: Comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol. 2013;189:493–499. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Kim R, Aluwihare K, Macneil F, Ouyang R, et al. Does magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int. 2018;6:88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2017.10.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaufmann S, Kruck S, Kramer U, Gatidis S, Stenzl A, Roethke M, et al. Direct comparison of targeted MRI-guided biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in patients with previous negative prostate biopsies. Urol Int. 2015;94:319–325. doi: 10.1159/000365397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2014;192:1374–1379. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pokorny MR, De Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent mr-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2015;68:713–720. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, MacAiran M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65:809–815. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:1380–1386. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, Yaskiv O, George AK, Fakhoury M, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191:1749–1754. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: A randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:17.e1–17.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–397. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Gorski A, Rouprêt M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol. 2015;194:669–673. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, et al. Comparative Analysis of Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Guidance. J Urol. 2015;193:87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 2016;34:525–532. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115:50–57. doi: 10.1111/bju.12690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Peltier A, Aoun F, Lemort M, Kwizera F, Paesmans M, Van Velthoven R. MRI-targeted biopsies versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:571708. doi: 10.1155/2015/571708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72:282–288. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Fu Y, Li D, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49:439–448. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1484-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, Mertan FV, Gaur S, Merino MJ, et al. Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADSTM Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. J Urol. 2017;198:583–590. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hakozaki Y, Matsushima H, Kumagai J, Murata T, Masuda T, Hirai Y, et al. A prospective study of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion targeted biopsy and concurrent systematic transperineal biopsy with the average of 18-cores to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2017;17:117. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0310-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Higher prostate cancer grade groups are detected in patients undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:101–105. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Castellucci R, Linares Quevedo AI, Sánchez Gómez FJ, Díez Rodríguez J, Cogorno L, Cogollos Acuña I, et al. Prospective nonrandomized study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging with subsequent MRI-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69:589–595. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02845-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mariotti GC, Falsarella PM, Garcia RG, Queiroz MRG, Lemos GC, Baroni RH. Incremental diagnostic value of targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion versus 14-fragments prostatic biopsy: a prospective controlled study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:11–16. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4939-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Thomsen HS. Multiparametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing repeat biopsy: a prospective comparison with clinical findings and histopathology. Acta Radiol. 2018;59:371–380. doi: 10.1177/0284185117718400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis (Precision Study) N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–1677. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Borkowetz A, Renner T, Platzek I, Toma M, Herout R, Baunacke M, et al. Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer under Active Surveillance Undergoing Surveillance Biopsy. Urol Int. 2018;100:155–163. doi: 10.1159/000486041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, Heckmann R, Reimann M, Wiemer L, et al. Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2018;200:767–773. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Costa DN, Goldberg K, Leon AD, Lotan Y, Xi Y, Aziz M, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging–guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Maxeiner A, Kittner B, Blobel C, Wiemer L, Hofbauer SL, Fischer T, et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2018;122:211–218. doi: 10.1111/bju.14212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75:582–590. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2019;75:570–578. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:811–818. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:100–109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e33–e36. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy May Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Compared to Standard Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–450. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, Hoogenboom M, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC, et al. Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men? Eur Urol. 2017;71:896–903. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ. Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1395–1400. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M, Brembilla G, Esposito A, Gandaglia G, et al. There is no way to avoid systematic prostate biopsies in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:112–118. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Downes MR, Gibson E, Sykes J, Haider M, van der Kwast TH, Ward A. Determination of the Association Between T2-weighted MRI and Gleason Sub-pattern: A Proof of Principle Study. Acad Radiol. 2016;23:1412–1421. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Prendeville S, Gertner M, Maganti M, Pintilie M, Perlis N, Toi A, et al. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Detection of Prostate Cancer Harboring Adverse Pathological Features of Intraductal Carcinoma and Invasive Cribriform Carcinoma. J Urol. 2018;200:104–113. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Leyh-Bannurah SR, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, Preisser F, Tilki D, Fisch M, et al. Anterior Localization of Prostate Cancer Suspicious Lesions in 1,161 Patients Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Targeted Biopsies. J Urol. 2018;200:1035–1040. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2014;114:E43–E49. doi: 10.1111/bju.12670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, Baco E, Berge V, Lien D, et al. Detection of the index tumour and tumour volume in prostate cancer using T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. BJU Int. 2014;114:E32–E42. doi: 10.1111/bju.12637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72:250–266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Costa DN, Kay FU, Pedrosa I, Kolski L, Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, et al. An initial negative round of targeted biopsies in men with highly suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance findings does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer—Preliminary experience. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2017;35:149.e15–149.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Deng F, Wysock JS, Bjurlin M, et al. The institutional learning curve of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Temporal improvements in cancer detection over 4 years. J Urol. 2018;200:1022–1029. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Giganti F, Moore CM. A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:432–443. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.De Silva T, Fenster A, Cool DW, Gardi L, Romagnoli C, Samarabandu J, et al. 2D-3D rigid registration to compensate for prostate motion during 3D TRUS-guided biopsy. Med Phys. 2013;40:022904. doi: 10.1118/1.4773873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Moldovan P, Udrescu C, Ravier E, Souchon R, Rabilloud M, Bratan F, et al. Accuracy of elastic fusion of prostate magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images under routine conditions: A prospective multi-operator study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0169120. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Halstuch D, Baniel J, Lifshitz D, Sela S, Ber Y, Margel D. Assessment of Needle Tip Deflection During Transrectal Guided Prostate Biopsy - Implications for Targeted Biopsies. J Endourol. 2018;32:252–256. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI–Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor Detection: Correlation with Radical Prostatectomy Specimen. Eur Urol. 2016;70:846–853. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced, Pelvic Phased Array Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Localized Prostate Cancer for Predicting Tumor Volume: Correlation With Radical Prostatectomy Findings. J Urol. 2006;176:2432–2437. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schreiber D, Wong AT, Rineer J, Weedon J, Schwartz D. Prostate biopsy concordance in a large populationbased sample: A Surveillance, epidemiology and end results study. J Clin Pathol. 2015;68:453–457. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Incidence and predictive factors using the modified gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1019–1024. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Porpiglia F, DE Luca S, Passera R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Bollito E, et al. Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:4833–4839. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.11045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1023–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Luzzago S, Musi G, Catellani M, Russo A, Di Trapani E, Mistretta FA, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic-Resonance to Confirm Eligibility to an Active Surveillance Program for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Intermediate Time Results of a Third Referral High Volume Centre Active Surveillance Protocol. Urol Int. 2018;101:56–64. doi: 10.1159/000488772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F, Mozer P, Olivier J, Barkatz J, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy Improves Selection of Patients Considered for Active Surveillance for Clinically Low Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Systematic Biopsies. J Urol. 2015;194:350–356. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.2938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey F, Lieu P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5:411–416. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.04.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pessoa RR, Viana PC, Mattedi RL, Guglielmetti GB, Cordeiro MD, Coelho RF, et al. Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2017;119:535–542. doi: 10.1111/bju.13624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72:275–281. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Gelet A, Crouzet S, Rouviere O, Bratan F, Chapelon JY. Focal treatment of prostate cancer using Focal One device: pilot study results. J Ther Ultrasound. 2015;3:O54. Available from: http://jtultrasound.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2050-5736-3-S1-O54. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.von Hardenberg J, Westhoff N, Baumunk D, Hausmann D, Martini T, Marx A, et al. Prostate cancer treatment by the latest focal HIFU device with MRI/TRUS-fusion control biopsies: A prospective evaluation. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:401.e1–401.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Valerio M, Shah TT, Shah P, Mccartan N, Emberton M, Arya M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion focal cryotherapy of the prostate: A prospective development study. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:150.e1–150.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Natarajan S, Jones TA, Priester AM, Geoghegan R, Lieu P, Delfin M, et al. Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Feasibility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion for Guidance. J Urol. 2017;198:839–847. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YC, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:524–532. doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0056-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Venderink W, Govers TM, De Rooij M, Futterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: Systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:1058–1063. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R, et al. Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) Eur Urol. 2018;73:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Westhoff N, Siegel F, Peter C, Hetjens S, Porubsky S, Martini T, et al. Defining the target prior to prostate fusion biopsy: the effect of MRI reporting on cancer detection. World J Urol. 2019;37:327–335. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2400-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wang NN, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Sonn GA. Teaching Urologists “How to Read Multi-Parametric Prostate MRIs Using PIRADSv2”: Results of an iBook Pilot Study. Urology. 2019;131:40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.04.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Kumar V, Bora GS, Kumar R, Jagannathan NR. Multiparametric (mp) MRI of prostate cancer. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2018;105:23–40. doi: 10.1016/j.pnmrs.2018.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine and Pharmacy Reports are provided here courtesy of University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Cluj-Napoca, Romania

RESOURCES